The focus of the 15th Biennale of Young Artists, co-curated by Sebastian Cichocki and Nada Prlja, is on the importance of the artistic practices in formation. This curatorial position is partly informed by the history of the Museum of Contemporary Art – Skopje, where the Biennale of Young Artists began in 1987, establishing an institutional platform for dialogue and experimentation in relation to the work of artists-in-formation. Focusing on process also implies an emphasis on research, experimentation, and dialogue with audiences, as well as on the social contexts that shape the ways in which artists act.

The 15th Biennale begins on the 29th October 2025, unfolding through a series of exhibitions and events, across a set of diverse venues in Skopje and beyond, leading up to its final phase in October 2026. Each of the Biennale’s events will serve as a platform for a new group of participants. The concept of this year’s edition of the Biennale moves away from the format of previous Biennales (centered around an exhibition at MoCA – Skopje and the awarding of prizes), and instead creates a dynamic platform for developing practices and works. Another new aspect of this year’s edition of the Biennale is its dispersed structure, with events taking place at various locations in Skopje as well as other cities, with the aim of creating artistic and cultural exhibition models that are connected to different social and urban contexts.

The 15th edition also revisits the structure of the Biennale’s Open Call. This time, the invitation is not limited by the age of its potential participants (formerly limited to under 35 year-olds), thereby taking into consideration artistic practices that may be newly established at any age, nor is it limited only to participants with formal education (professional artists). The  Open Call is also open to designers, architects, performance artists, writers, students, and others. This shift in the structure of the call reflects not only contemporary ways of working, but also echoes some of the Biennale’s initial impulses, which had similarly sought ways to expand the scope of formal art.

All interested applicants are hereby invited to submit a selection of realised works, as well as projects that are in their initial, sketch-like phase—works that reflect the very beginning of the creative process and are characteristic of early-stage artistic production. Those ‘early works’ could be drawings, models, public space actions, graffiti, interventions, performances, concrete poetry, short videos, radio-podcasts, etc. Works in more “conventional” formats, such as paintings and sculptures are also welcome. As the curators emphasise: “We are interested in the nascent phase of processes. ‘Early’ can be raw, unfinished, primary or even premature, but it can also be avant-garde, thought-provoking, and radically visionary in terms of concept and idea.”

In accordance with this Open Call, applicants are invited to submit their portfolios or links to websites and profiles (Instagram, etc.) featuring their work to mocaskopje.team@gmail.com, no later than 23.08.2025. If your work is conceived for a specific location (a particular street, public institution, etc.), please indicate this in your application.

15th Biennale of Young Artists

The Biennale of Young Artists organised by the Museum of Contemporary Art – Skopje announces the appointment of Sebastian Cichocki and Nada Prlja as co-curators of its fifteenth edition, which will unfold across sites and spaces in Skopje and beyond. The Biennale will begin on 29 October 2025 and will develop as a sequence of exhibitions and events until the final phase in October 2026.

Sebastian Cichocki is an established and internationally recognised curator, based in Warsaw. He is currently serving as Senior Curator at the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw and also lectures at the University of the Arts in Poznań. Nada Prlja is an internationally acclaimed artist and currently also an Associate Curator at the Museum of Contemporary Art – Skopje.

In a statement with regards to their appointment as curators of the 15th Biennale of Young Artists, Cichocki and Prlja write: The Biennale will be taking a more experimental approach: unfolding over the course of a calendar year, it will be conceived in phases and predominantly extend beyond the physical parameters of the Museum of Contemporary Art – Skopje. The participants of the first (local) phase of the Biennale will be selected by the curators, based on recommendations from the Advisory Board, as well as an Open Call to be announced on 20th July 2025. The Biennale will embrace various forms of artistic expression, including sound, dance, poetry, site-specific work and interventions. The Biennale will also explore the concept of ‘young art,’ emphasising the importance and vitality of ‘early artworks,’ regardless of age or educational background of its participants.

“Since its formation, the Biennale of Young Artists has been a platform for creative experimentation, collaboration, and social impact, fostering support for generations of artists in formation. Rooted in our contemporary context, we have created a space of meaningful regional and international exchange,” says Tihomir Topuzovski, the acting director of MoCA – Skopje. Furthermore, of Cichocki and Prlja’s appointment as the Biennale curators, he says:“Sebastian Cichocki and Nada Prlja each bring distinct perspectives shaped by their individual practices. The 15th BYA will continue to promote thought-provoking contemporary art practices by establishing itself as a key platform for supporting early-career artists—a space for engaged inquiry and collective reflection. Through their curatorial visions, the Biennale will critically re-examine what a Biennale of Young Artists should represent within contemporary conditions.”

Sebastian Cichocki is Senior Curator at the Museum of Modern Art in Warsaw (MSN), Poland, where he curated “Banner. Engagement, Realism and Political Art” (2025), “Primary Forms” (2021-ongoing), “The Penumbral Age: Art in the Times of Planetary Crisis” (2020),  “Making Use: Life in Postartistic Times” (2016), amongst other exhibition and research programmes. He recently  curated “The Gleaners Society Club” at The Haus for Media Art in Oldenburg; 40th EVA International – Ireland’s Biennial of Contemporary Art; “The Postartistic Assembly” at the 14^th Gwangju Biennale and “Primary Forms” at the 3^rd Thailand Biennale in Chiang Rai. Other projects include the Polish Pavilions at the 52nd and 54th Venice Biennials of Art. Cichocki is a founding member of the Office for Postartistic Services – a network of art workers contributing to pro-democracy political struggles. He is a lecturer at the University of the Arts in Poznań, Poland (UAP) and a 2018 fellow at the Center for Curatorial Leadership, MoMA, New York. Sebastian Cichocki has been visiting Skopje since 2005 and has forged close links with the local art scene.

Nada Prlja is an artist whose projects are multilayered, site or condition-specific. Prlja represented the RN Macedonia at the 58th Venice Biennial She has participated in various international biennials, including the 18th Tallinn Print Triennial in Estonia (2022), the14th Baltic Triennial in Lithuania (2021), Innsbruck International Biennial in Austria (2022 & 2020), the 7th Berlin Biennale in Germany (2012), Manifesta 8 in Spain (2010), the 28th International Printmaking Biennial in Slovenia (2009), and others. She has presented her work in numerous solo and group exhibitions, including at MAXXI, Rome; Kunsthalle Krems, Krems; White Cube, London; Calvert 22 Foundation, London; Palais de Tokyo, Paris; Lewis Glucksman Gallery, Cork; BODE Gallery, Havana. She also works as a curator, currently as a curator-collaborator at MoCA – Skopje. Between 2004-2015 she lectured at various universities in London. Prlja received an MPhil research degree from the Royal College of Arts, London, UK, after graduating from the Academy of Fine Arts in Skopje.

About the Biennale 

MoCA – Skopje’s commitment to artistic practices in formation, is embodied by its initiative The Biennale of Young Artists, whose 15th edition will be held in 2025 and 2026. The programme traces its origins to two landmark exhibitions held in 1967—Contemporary Macedonian Painting and Young Generation and Contemporary Macedonian Sculpture—which set a precedent for the Museum’s sustained engagement with early-career artists and their distinct approaches, methodologies, and discourses. The concept was formalised in 1987 as the Youth Biennial and to date, each edition has expanded the scope of media and curatorial themes, broadening participation from local to regional and international contexts, while also refining the selection process in each edition. MoCA – Skopje offers a recognised institutional space for supporting and presenting evolving artistic practices, with the Biennale of Young Artists remaining a vital platform for dialogue and experimentation.

The Large Glass Journal, in its last issue (37/38, 2025), published a series of interviews with artists, curators, and artistic directors. 

Here we bring the interview of Sonja Abadžieva, art historian, curator, and former director of MoCA–Skopje (from 1977 to 1984), which offers unique insights into the world of this internationally acclaimed artist, conducted during her visit to his studio in Kamakura in 1996. Lee Ufan’s sculpture is currently on display at the Rijksmuseum Garden in Amsterdam, and his work can also be seen at the distinguished Lee Ufan Museum on the Japanese island of Naoshima, as well as in the collections of several world-renowned institutions, including the Guggenheim Museum in New York, the Centre Georges Pompidou in Paris, and the Tate Museums in London.

Relatum: Simultaneously a place and a relation

During my residency at the Tokyo Art Institute (1995 – 97) as a Japan Foundation Fellow, my respected mentor Shinichi Segi— the renowned Japanese art critic, researcher, and gallerist—introduced me to the artist Lee Ufan. The director of the Museum of Modern Art in Kamakura, Mr. Tadayasu Sakai, was the intermediary in establishing our encounter. I first learned about the exceptional importance of Lee Ufan at the La Biennale di Venezia (1970), where he represented the legendary Japanese group Mono-ha. I visited the artist in his studio—a nest embedded in the heart of the bamboo forest in the fashionable city of Kamakura, near Tokyo, in 1996.

Growing up during the Japanese colonization of Korea, artist Lee Ufan emerged as a pioneering practitioner and theorist. He rejected Western ideas about art and conducted extensive research into advancing the understanding of space, simultaneously as a place and a relation-relatum. Alongside creatives Kishio Suga, Nobuo Sekine, and Takamatsu Jirō, Ufan was a founder of the Mono-ha movement in 1968, which gained global recognition.

SONJA ABADŽIEVA_ You graduated with a major in philosophy from Nihon University in Tokyo in 1961, and then, for a long time, you worked as a professor at Tokyo’s Tama University. Considering your popularity in the world of visual arts as a painter and an ambient sculptor, few people are aware of your core activity as a writer, theorist, philosopher, and art critic. What impact did your broad spectrum of activities have on Japanese art in the late 1960s and 1970s?

LEE UFAN_ One could say that my entry into the history of Japanese and world art history began as the ideologist and founder of the Japanese group Mono-ha, which is de facto considered as a continuation of the already globally affirmed group GUTAI, which participated at the Venice Biennial and exhibited at the Guggenheim Museum in New York. The main contribution to partially surpassing the Japanese traditional expression and the dominant, mostly conventional, views of art criticism and theory (acceptance, alteration, assimilation) can be attributed precisely to the formation of an alternative option, an idea for exceeding the present situation by means of the theoretical platform of the Mono-ha group.

At that time, I was truly obsessed with philosophy, especial- ly that of Merleau Ponty (the minimalist paradigm), “l’être” by Heidegger, “l’infini” by Spinoza, “la chose” by Kant, “topos”

by Kitaro Nishida, etc. The concepts put forth by these philosophers reflect my interests in how the world is formed and how it functions without human intervention. The world exists as something that transcends the self (myself) and something that is impenetrable. Facing the impenetrable, the Other, I chose to constantly transform myself into that Other. The artwork depicts a relationship that results from the encounter with the Other and represents the space where the interaction takes place.

SA_ Let’s go back to Mono-ha, a group that made a pionee- ring breakthrough on the international art scene during a period of instability for modern and contemporary Japanese art (fukakuji tsusei no jidai).^[1] The group is considered to be a remarkable fusion between a Buddhist and European understanding of the world, a symbol of creating art on the “very edge” of the difference between natural simplicity and artistic transposition, all within the realm of minimalism in spatial installations. It focused on the unmade creation, not on the already made and known, virtually coinciding chronologically with both the Arte Povera movement in Europe and Minimalism in the USA.

In fact, you started creating as a direct reaction to Pop Art and Conceptual Art. At the beginning, you used an Asian painting technique with pigments mixed with glue and a calligraphy brush on canvases, and then moved on to the usual painting process. How would you comment on this extended question?

Sonja Abadzieva and Lee Ufan in his Tokyo studio

LU_ Firstly, something on the name Mono-ha. It is usually translated as School of Things [mono = thing, ha = faction or group]. The theorist Toshiki Minemura defines it as a group of Japanese artists, active before and after 1970, who tried to create a visual language from things as they are (natural), and unmodified, thus acquiring a fundamental significance. Hence, some of its members used earth, water, oil, stone, wood, glass, paper, leather, and metal,

In other words, in their paintings, they included visually reduced strokes, points made with the brush, lines, and the spontaneous dripping of color. These members of the group included: Nobuo Sekine, Kenji Inumaki, Katsuro Yoshida, Susumu Koshimizu, Kishio Suga, Katsuhiko Narita, Koji Enokura, Noboru Takayama, Li Ufan, Jiro Takamatsu, Hitoshi Nomura, and Noriyuki Haraguchi. With the arrival of the new scene of Mono-ha, [also] came […] the immersion into the global, international “sea.” It should be constantly kept in mind, in this case, that modern art was presented through an objectifying process of a kind, based on representational logic, through which “its face” was reflected to the world.

As long as the representation is a painting, it is inevitably a virtual representation. The conscious dimension of the representation can only give power to the painting if it separates itself from the world, by declaring that it will not dissolve by merging with the world. And so, its members said to themselves: “instead of making the world a recognisable, familiar shape (an object), let’s present the real world itself and exhibit the everyday things that are usually ignored, setting them free to shine and thereby expand the world.”

SA_ Isn’t it already becoming clear that the Mono-ha group is compatible with the international scene? I even find points of reference with the narratives of some Macedo- nian authors from the seventies (Simon Shemov / Kocho Fidanovski, Ismet Ramichevikj, Gligor Stefanov, Petre Nikoloski, Ibrahim Bedi, etc.).

LU_ Yes, of course – as in other cultures, the spirit of escaping the known and defined against the rigid objectivity and rationality of Modernism, is evident. The Japanese Arte Povera and the conceptualism of the members of the Gutai and Mono-ha groups are already free of metaphorical, symbolic connotations. The expression is focused on the materials themselves.

In any case, I feel the interference of different cultures, for example from the Asian art realm (the participants in the before mentioned Japanese groups, related authors from China and Korea) and from Europe (Lucio Fontana, Piero Manzoni, Yannis Kounelis, etc.).

SA_ I perceive your authentic language and visual poetics as a miraculous continuity from the very beginnings to today. What are the artistic cycles through which the persistence of an idea is expressed, starting from the late sixties and seventies until today?

LU_ Yes, the works of the series From Point (1973), Relatum (1968/1990), and With Winds from the nineties, are later placed in a profound relation with the works of the cycle From Winds, Relatum and Correspondence (1992/3).

SA_ In an interview, you say that you would like to cover painting, sculpture and architecture, but since the latter is the one synthetically most connected to space, you chose to maintain flatness in painting, and the volumi- nous through sculpture. Is there more dynamism in your painting in contrast to the spatial sculptures, where silence dominates?

LU_ In painting, I stand face to face with the canvas, whe- reas in sculpture the space and the material are interwoven. They become translucent, that is, neither completely objective nor completely abstract. This intermediate state, where the artist is attentive to both matter and space, and listens and responds to them, creates an impression of the static.

SA_ In the sculptural installations Correspondences, or in Relatum, the roughness of the stone meets the smoothness of the glass, water, and steel; while in the painting, however, the virgin-like canvas becomes one with the Japanese à la sumi-e brush strokes. Are there symbolic connotations in these encounters?

LU_ The stone has no metaphorical or symbolic meaning. It is representative of nature that transcends objectivity. When faced with undefined nature, humans find it difficult to establish and conduct a dialogue with it. My question is how to establish contact with nature. This is exactly where my focus is, my philosophy. Stone and metal come from nature, whether untouched or from nature in which humans have intervened. The metal plate is a bridge between the fake, the artificial and the real. The smoothness of the plate bears a human mark, while the stone or the brush stroke comes from a sphere that is more removed from humans. These collisions point to the relationship between abstrac- tion and materiality.

SA_ It seems we are now opening up the fundamental axis of the Lee Ufan philosophy—the question of the infinite?

LU_ Modern art is predominantly interested in objectivity, in facts and in the finite, the defined. I think that the space opens up and the infinite manifests itself when the world of facts and objects engages with the world of the unmade. In this sense, space is simultaneously a place and a relation – relatum. The object depends on the place and the place needs the object to indicate it, to make it evident. I am intrigued to study the tоpological relationship between place and object. Modern art privileged being, and devalued decomposition and disappearance. In this way, it denied

the passing of time. But time and space are inseparable. Buddhism teaches us that being is only possible because there is non-being and actions. Because, once we accept disappearance, we begin to understand time. My cycles From Point, From Lines, From Winds are based on exactly that tоpology, between the place and the object, or the subject.

SA_ Would you agree if I stated that the question of empti- ness is a topos in your oeuvre: the canvas is as if unfinished, and the stone appears to be floating above the water or the glass?

LU_ My interest dwells on the relationship between what is painted [made] and what is not made, created. In a way, I oppose the artist’s tendency to saturate the canvas to the last drop – all over – or to smooth the stone to perfection, as Pollock does in painting or Brâncuși in sculpture, for instance. That is why I work on only a small part of the canvas, that is to say, I leave a space between the stone and the plate. I try to limit the involvement of the artist and give voice to the untouched parts. The human, that is the artist, contributes with a single small point, in order to give up the idea of doing everything.

SA_ Is it an illusion that silence prevails in your paintings or sculptures/installations (ambients)? Does silence have a peripheral role, or is it completely replaced by the concept of emptiness?

LU_ The silence in my work is the language of the emptiness that corresponds to the material; emptiness has nothing in common with silence. The void is not a space in which the artist talks, but a place inhabited by the artist’s face and voice. When the violin plays, we hear a sound that does not belong to either the musician or the violin. This is a third “sound,” a resonance that reveals to us what silence and emptiness are. In the East, silence is a synonym for truth.

SA_ In relation to the terms: emptiness, silence, unfinished, etc., the concept of infinity imposes itself as a significant concept. You deliberated on this for a long time, to elaborate and artistically embody it in your practice.

LU_ I appreciate artworks aiming for the sense of infinity. For example, as in the landscapes of the Chinese T’ang and Sung, overwhelmed by the power of the silky whiteness of the unpainted areas, circling around the painted parts. Or the painted fragments of the Roman wall paintings in Pompeii. The greatness of these artists reaches through time and the distances involved. The works’ interaction with the surrounding space, enables me to feel the inexhaustible breath of infinity.

In this sense, I would also mention Claude Monet and Lucio Fontana. Monet, through his colours that change from minute to minute, in parallel with the endless permutations of time, creating variations in space. Monet thus refers to, and invokes, the world’s changeability. Both artists create beautiful visualisations of the non-existent, while at the same time, creating connections with the outside world.

SA_ Where is the Ego here, and how suppressed is it?

LU_ I do not like to verbalise or describe the world through myself, but I gladly perceive and acknowledge the connections with the outside world. My works are not just mine, since they are drawn from the outside world. They are my explorations of the infinite. It is not about the thesis of symbolising oneself (self-symbolisation), but above all, about defining and confirming one’s own existence in relation to the Other. I want to perceive the world through the space that is created by relations, connections.

SA_ The elaborated concept of the infinite can be read as minimalism, which does not correspond, theoretically, to the Western/American model of this artistic movement.
LU_ Works of art are not reality and are not the personifi- cation of concepts. Fragmented and interdimensional, they exist between reality and concept, enabling and influencing both. Fragmentation is thus a wider, slightly dehumanised territory of the work of art. I would like to draw the maxi- mum correlation through contact with the minimal. I have to free myself inside, in the world itself, through the unusual [practice] of returning to nothingness. The elaboration of only a small part of the world unites me, and facilitates my first-hand experiences. In this sense, I am a spatial minimalist.

I prefer an animated space to an animated work of art. The work of art is not a symbolised text. It is a mutable living being that leads to both contradictions, as well as to an accumulated, amalgamated energy. The balanced relation- ship between the surrounding space and the very materials must act as a unity. This is similar to the rigors of physical training for athletes, through which they are enhancing their physical power. I am the one who creates the power of balance and the feeling of infinity. This depends on the spatial strength of the negative space.

SA_ How is the phenomenon of infinity created visually?

LU_ I created the infinite through the series of paintings From Line, From Point, from the beginning of the 1970s, thus elaborating on repetition and divergence, rather than indicating the connection with the Other. I created the territory of the painting by balancing the relationship between the points and the lines, and the distance between them, opened through the infinite (the cosmic). In sculpture, I created the relationship in the space between the natural stone and the glass or metal plate, as a natural, but hu- man-processed material. This juxtaposition represents the ability to create a correlation that reinforces the boundaries of the external world.

I would also like to point out that I am aiming for a relationship whereby, in certain installations, the negative space and the surface of the wall are emphasised – the work of art in which the correspondence between the base (foundation) and the corners (edges) cause a reciprocal action with the surrounding space.

My works, by not belonging to, or being estranged from the world of the known, or from the world intervened in by humans, contain an unusual strangeness and attempt to grasp the infinite. The world is more vast, and larger than me, representing something obscure. My works point to that place where I meet and connect with the Other.

SA_ During your stays and period of connectivity to the French art scene of the 1960s/70s, was there a certain closeness with some of your colleagues from that time? I am thinking, more specifically, of the authors Claude Viala and Niele Toroni and the approach related to the repetition of time and of actions? And finally, can you also expand your answer to include relations with certain Anglo-American minimalists as well?

LU_ Certain works by Viala or Toroni are visually close to some of my canvases. However, in terms of their motifs and materials, my installations are closer to the works of Richard Serra, Carl Andre, Robert Smithson or Richard Long. The connection (between us) is related to the notion of infinity, but specifically as an element of reconciliation with the world, with the environment. These authors do
not appreciate the concept of existence outside- the-self, especially not the world outside of civilization. Whereas the “stones” that I use are outside of human-made reality, and are a connection with the outside world.

^[1] 1 深く知的な時代 -“the era of deep knowledge” or “the age of profound understanding.”

The entire series of interviews can be read in the printed copy of The Large Glass, issue 37/38 available in the MoCA-Skopje shop or to be ordered on info@msu.mk.

After the retrospective exhibition of Tony Craig in 1997, the Skopje Museum of Contemporary Art presents the work of Richard Deacon, one of the most significant representatives of a brilliant generation of sculptors (Alison Wilding, Bill Woodrow, Anthony Gormley, Shirazeh Houshiari, Anish Kapoor), who in the 1980’s bore the epithet “New British Sculpture” and who, with their specifics, marked the art of post-modernism at the end of the 20th century.

Richard Deacon is the winner of the Turner Prize in 1987, the Tate Gallery’s award, one of the most prestigious British and world awards, and in 2007 he represented Wales at the Venice Biennale.

In the presence of Richard Deacon, the exhibition was opened by Tihomir Topuzovski, the director of the Museum of Modern Art, and Marija Stanchevska-Gjorgova, State Secretary at the Ministry of Culture and Tourism. The opening was also attended by the British Ambassador to North Macedonia, Mr. Matthew Lawson, and representatives of the British Council.

Thursday, 6 Јune 19:30 – 21:30  & Friday, 7 Јune 17:30 – 19:30, MoCA Library 

The first half of the workshop is called “Meme-thinking.” In this part, we will discuss theories ranging from media and cultural studies to art history, illustrating how memes can be contextualized within this framework. In the second half (titled “Meme-making”), we will go through the step-by-step process of making memes and start creating memes together in a collaborative format.
 
Cem A. is an artist with a background in anthropology. He is known for running the art meme page @freeze_magazine and for his performances and site-specific installations. His work explores topics such as survival and alienation in the art world, often through a hyper- reflexive lens and collaborative projects.

Cem A.’s selected solo exhibitions and installations include Louisiana Museum, Barbican Centre, Berlinische Galerie, and Museum Wiesbaden. His work was also included in documenta fifteen, Istanbul Modern, Mudam Luxembourg, Klima Biennale Vienna and 14. Biennial of Young Artists Museum of Contemporary Art Skopje. He has held lectures at Royal College of Art London, Central Saint Martins, HEAD Geneva, HDK Valand and Universität der Künste Berlin.
 
Those interested can register for the workshop by filling out the form.
The application period is open from May 29th to June 6th. 

The workshop “Design for Resurgence” brings into practice the artist’s multi-year research. The goal is to sense new ways to design and act, which will be a direct and equal response to the world we live in, in the direction of the world we wish to create.

At the centre of this practice is the process of prototyping, developing models for embodiment and speculation, looking for insight into how humanity relates to the more-than-human world. The format of prototyping allows unformed ideas to be tested, putting the focus on their organizing principles as an attempt for a productive departure from anthropocentrism.

The question “How do we imagine the future?” is entangled with our choices as we create the present. This entanglement makes for a fertile soil for the field of speculative design to take root. But, what are these speculations? Do they contain any meaningful insight into possible ways to abandon our self-destructive trajectory, or are they simply palliative lullabies preparing us for an extinction event which seems more and more likely?

The participants will be split into teams. Each team will create speculative scenarios and prototypes, which can range from abstract ideas to detailed concepts.

The workshop is intended for everyone who is interested, regardless of their previous knowledge of design. The participants are encouraged to use their favourite tools: photography, video, drawing, digital illustration, text, performance etc, to articulate their vision for a resurgent world.

Dates: 10th and 12th of December 2024 from 7 to 10 PM. Everyone who is interested can apply until December 9th. https://forms.gle/e6FSsfBGa2GHBUL6A

The Large Glass, issue 37/38 engages in a series of interviews with recognised directors, artistic directors and curators working on different Biennial in 2025 – the 3rd Helsinki Biennial, 41st EVA International, 36th Ljubljana Biennale of Graphic Arts, 13th Göteborg International Biennial for Contemporary Art (GIBCA), 13th Momentum Biennial, 6th Art Encounters Biennial, and Sharjah Biennial 16. Here you can read an interview with Kati Kivinen, Head of Exhibitions at HAM Helsinki Art Museum, and Blanca de la Torre, Director of IVAM – Institut Valencià d’Art Modern—both artistic directors of the 3rd Helsinki Biennial. The interview was conducted by the internationaly renown Macedonian artist, Nada Prlja, before the opening of the Biennial.

NADA PRLJA _ Vallisaari Island’s last inhabitants left in 1996 (1), leaving the island undisturbed by human habitation for decades. On the one hand, the island’s thriving, unspoiled nature is populated by a range of grazing animals, unspoiled lakes, overgrown vegetation and other fascinating non-human natural kingdoms – while on the other hand, the history of human activity is a fruitful playground for, at least, the imagination of “keyboard warriors.” This island’s history recounts tales of Russian rule in the 19th century, including fortifications, batteries, the 1854 bombardment of the island, and the mutineers’ takeover in 1906. Moreover, in the 1950s, a group of adventurous children, citizens of the island, searched for the mouths of army tunnels and dug up forbidden explosives. This island is only a 20-minute boat ride from Helsinki, yet it feels like a story read aloud from a work of fiction for children.

With all this in mind, one of the biennial’s key principles is the inclusion of site-specific commissioned works for each edition, where art engages in a dialogue with the history of Vallisaari Island and its thriving nature.(2) It was clear from the outset of your concept, announced in June 2024, that you are aiming to oppose the human-centric perspective and to “focus on non-human subjects.”(3) This is not so surprising, considering the current state of Vallisaari island. 

Could you explain why non-human subjects are at the centre of your focus?

KATI KIVINEN & BLANCA DE LA TORRE _ The third Helsinki Biennial seeks to shake us out of anthropocentrism in order to better understand the delicate and severely imbalanced relationship between humankind and nature. With this goal in mind, we have placed various non-human actors—plants, animals, fungi, elements and minerals—at the centre of our curatorial work. We believe that by shifting the focus away from humanity alone, we can make space for and gain understanding of others, while also striving to find more diverse ways of sensing and conveying knowledge about the world.

The exhibition also aims to highlight how, in the midst of the ongoing climate and environmental crisis, we need a new praxis that more broadly considers the impact of anthro- pogenic activity on planetary well-being. The artists focus their microscopic observations on the natural surroundings, while also creating interpretations that draft possible futures. This is where the power of art is at its best—in its ability to generate new agencies while simultaneously creating new realities.

N P _ The very concept of distancing oneself from a human-centric perspective is liberating. There is something positive and invigorating about focusing on non-human subjects. Which exhibitions or artworks served as your guiding inspiration while conceptually developing HB 2025?

K & B _ I am not sure if it was any specific exhibition or any particular artwork, but rather a practice that several artists that we have invited to participate in the third edition of the biennial have already been conducting for some time. And then, of course, a huge pile of books and texts by various writers and thinkers whose ideas have supported the development of our curatorial framework.

Likewise, the state of the planet is also one of the key factors behind the chosen curatorial framework, with the need to find new ways to address the current situation and to avoid losing hope and optimism in the project, which seldom leads towards new thinking and broadening perspectives. Therefore, our curatorial approach has been motivated by the search, over many years, for more responsible ways to address the ecological crisis, as well as the intention to take all our experiences one step further and propose some differential lines that mark a paradigm shift in the “biennial” model.

N P _ Blanca, as one of the leading curators dealing with issues of sustainability, you have developed concrete guidelines to reduce the ecological footprint of your past projects, such as the 15th International Cuenca Biennial in Ecuador, “Overview Effect” at the MoCAB Museum in Belgrade, Serbia, and “Con los pies en la T(t)ierra” at CAAM, Centro Atlántico de Arte Moderno in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain, to name a few. What are your specific ideas regarding sustainability and the Helsinki Biennial 2025?

Blanca de la Torre and Kati Kivinen, Head Curators of Helsinki Biennial 2025 Photo: Ilkka Saastamoinen/HAM/Helsinki Biennial

B _ For so many years, my professional goal has focused on how curatorship cannot work only at the discursive level, but also entails the development of situated cultural practices that consider the traceability of the materials with which we produce, as well as the processes, the collab- orators, the workers and all the other people involved and of course, in general, the (environmental, social, cultural) life cycle of the projects and climate justice as a backdrop.

An approach to “sustainable curating” implies developing projects that speak of ecology in content, form, and attitude. Showing environmental artistic practices that go hand-in-hand with sustainability discourses is a way to stimulate collective action, to rethink our cultural practices, and to encourage environmental empowerment. That is the line that I am developing further together with Kati and the whole team.

N P _ Kati, as one of the most prolific European curators and the Head of Exhibitions at HAM Helsinki Art Museum, how do you view your role as head of exhibitions in relation to being a co-curator of a biennial? Where do these roles overlap, and how do they differ? Could you please reflect on the public art aspect of the works for the biennial, and the idea of a growing collection of commissioned public art works on the island?

K _ That is a good question and not an easy one to answer. These roles overlap in many ways, in a good but also in a challenging way. The biggest challenge is of course time, since both positions demand a lot of it. But at the same time, one role supports the other, and I can be Blanca’s guide to the institution with which she has engaged for a few years, in order to work with us. As the Head of Exhibitions, my work comprises not only the development of the curatorial program for the museum with my team of curators, but also a significant amount of administrative work. Whereas in the biennial project, I have the freedom to concentrate more on the content together with Blanca, as we have a superb production team working with us.

Because HAM is a major player as a producer of new public art within the city of Helsinki, we also wish to find synergies between the biennial project and new commissions for public art. There are many challenges coming our way, mostly related to challenges in schedules—the public art commission projects tend to be quite long procedures, often lasting several years, whereas in the biennial project we are tied to the bi-yearly production schedule. But sometimes, it works out perfectly and for next year we already have two new public art commissions which will premiere in the Helsinki Biennial. After that, we intend to find a new location in the city of Helsinki.

N P _ Blanca writes: “It is not a matter of choice; [sustainability] is the only possible way.”(4) This aligns with the Helsinki City Strategy 2021–2025, which states that “the Helsinki Biennial (…) has been committed from the beginning to produce art in a sustainable manner.”(5) Sustainability, as outlined in the Helsinki City Strategy, could be understood as a means or method of producing the artworks of which the HB 2025 will consist. Will sustainability be integrated into the ideas presented by the artists and reflected in the communication of the artworks to the visitors, or will it be framed solely within the production process of the artworks (for example, ensuring that works are not shipped via DHL, or that their production avoids the use of non-degradable materials)? In other words, is sustainability your conceptual framework or a means of production of the artworks, or both?

K _ Sustainability does not stop at the conceptual frame- work of the exhibition, but it extends all the way to the production at all the various levels. For this we have also created a decalogue for a sustainable situated biennial, which clarifies our ethos behind making the exhibition, but also serves as a guideline to all involved in the project— curators, artists, production team and collaborators—on how we should estimate all the choices in the project.

B _ Exactly. “Sustainability” is not a theme or a concept, in the same way as “feminism” cannot be just a subject. It must be embedded structurally, in every institution, every museum, every project, every event and every decision we take. That’s why we need a systemic change so as to be able to face the ecological emergency.

1 “History,” Vallisaari, National Parks of Finland, accessed October 01, 2024, www.natio- nalparks.fi/vallisaarihistory.

2 “Sustainability,” Helsinki Biennial, accessed October 01, 2024, helsinkibiennaali.fi/en/ sustainability/.

3 “In Helsinki Biennial 2025, the Curators Focus on Non-Human Subjects,” Helsinki Biennial, accessed October 01, 2024, helsinkibiennaali. fi/en/story/in-helsinki-bien- nial-2025-the-curators-fo- cus-on-non-human-subjects/.

4 “Blanca De La Torre,” Blanca De La Torre, accessed October 01, 2024, blancadelatorre.net.

5 “Sustainability,” Helsinki Biennial, accessed October 01, 2024, helsinkibiennaali.fi/en/ sustainability/.

The full interviews can be read in the printed copy of The Large Glass, issue 37/38 available in the MoCA-Skopje shop or to be ordered on info@msu.mk.

3rd Helsinki Biennial is open from 8 June to 21 September 2025

Title photo: Olafur Eliasson, Viewing machine, 2001/2003. Helsinki Biennial 8.6.–21.9.2025, Vallisaari Island. © 2001/2003 Olafur Eliasson. Photo: HAM / Helsinki Biennial / Maija Toivane

Within the MSU Skopje Interdisciplinary Program, in the last five years, several lectures were held from different fields of critical theory, art criticism, contemporary art and museology, as well as conversations and artists talks presenting the works of Macedonian and world artists.

The recorded part of that program for the museum’s video and audio archive, which has already been published on the YouTube channel and the MSU Facebook network, can also be streamed on our website, which has recently been placed in the Educational Programs section: https://msu.mk/lectures/